SHRI DEV BRAT SHARMA, JALANDHAR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD 3 (1), JALANDHAR

ITA 493/ASR/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7108 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-01-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 04-10-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M.S. PARMAR
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Capital asset; Retrospective amendment; Fair market value; Set aside; Capital Gains
• Section: 143(3); 50C; 143(1)

Judgement Text

P A G E | 1 ITA NO.493/ASR/2018 AY 2015-16 DEB BRAT SHARMA VS. ITO, WARD 3(1) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CAMP BENCH AT JALANDHAR BEFORE SHRI. N.K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI. RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 493/ASR/2018 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2015-16) SH. DEV BRAT SHARMA, 62, NEW RAJINDER NAGAR, VS. NEAR NEW COURT, JALANDHAR PAN ACUPS6682E INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1) JALANDHAR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY: SHRI. SANDEEP VIJH, CA REVENUE BY: SHRI M.S. PARMAR, D.R DATE OF HEARING: 15.01.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 17.01.2019 O R D E R PER RAVISH SOOD, JM THE PRESENT APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTE D AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT (APPEALS)-2, JALANDHAR, DAT ED 27.07.2018, WHICH IN TURN ARISES FROM THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED BY THE A.O UNDER SEC. 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (FOR SHORT I.T. ACT), DATED 15.12.2017 FOR A.Y. 2015-16. THE ASSESSEE ASSAILING THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) HAS RAISED BEFORE US THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS O F APPEAL:- 1. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), H AS ERRED IN SUSTAINING AN ORDER WHICH IS BAD IN LAW. 2. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), H AS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION TOWARDS LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AT RS. 72,00,000/- WHICH WAS BAD IN LAW. 3. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HA S ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE COMPUTATION OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AT RS. 74 ,61,158/- AS AGAINST THE RETURNED FIGURE OF RS. 26,158/-. THE LEGAL AS W ELL AS THE FACTUAL POSITION HAS NOT BEEN APPRECIATED. P A G E | 2 ITA NO.493/ASR/2018 AY 2015-16 DEB BRAT SHARMA VS. ITO, WARD 3(1) 2. BRIEFLY STATED, THE ASSESSEE HAD E-FILED HIS RET URN OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 2015-16 ON 24.03.2017, DECLARING AN INCOME OF RS. 10,89,140/-. THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS PROC ESSED AS SUCH UNDER SECTION 143(1) OF THE I.T. ACT. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(2). 3. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IT W AS OBSERVED BY THE A.O THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION SOLD A PROPERTY ON 19.03.2015 FOR A CONSIDERATION O F RS. 28,00,000/-. IN RESPECT OF THE SALE OF THE AFOREMENTIONED PROPER TY THE ASSESSEE HAD RETURNED A LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN (FOR SHORT LTC G) OF RS.2,61,158/-. IT WAS NOTICED BY THE A.O THAT THE STAMP DUTY IN RESPECT OF THE AFORESAID SALE TRANSACTION WAS PAID ON THE CIRCLE V ALUE/SEGMENT RATE OF RS. 1 CRORE OF THE PROPERTY UNDER CONSIDERATION. IN THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASS ESSEE THAT AS AN AGREEMENT TO SELL, DATED 20.11.2002 WAS EXECUTED IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTY UNDER CONSIDERATION, THEREFORE, THE SALE V ALUE WAS TO BE FIXED AS PER THE VALUE THEREIN TAKEN AND NOT AS PER THAT ADOPTED BY THE SUB- REGISTRAR FOR THE PURPOSE OF PAYMENT OF STAMP DUTY. IN THE BACKDROP OF HIS AFORESAID CONTENTION, IT WAS AVERRED BY THE LD. A.R THAT THE LTCG ON THE SALE OF THE PROPERTY UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS TO BE WORKED OUT AS PER THE FIRST AND SECOND PROVISO OF SEC. 50C(1), WHICH THOUGH WAS INSERTED VIDE THE FINANCE ACT, 2016 W.E.F 01.04.201 7, BUT WAS TO BE GIVEN A RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT. 4. THE A.O AFTER DELIBERATING ON THE AFORESAID CONT ENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE WAS HOWEVER NOT PERSUADED TO ACCEPT THE SA ME, AND CALLED UPON HIM TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY THE CIRCLE VALUE/SEGM ENT RATE OF RS. 1 CRORE MAY NOT BE ADOPTED IN TERMS OF SEC. 50C(1) FO R WORKING OUT THE LTCG ON THE SALE OF THE PROPERTY UNDER CONSIDERATIO N. IN REPLY, THE ASSESSEE IN ORDER TO IMPRESS UPON THE A.O THAT THE CIRCLE P A G E | 3 ITA NO.493/ASR/2018 AY 2015-16 DEB BRAT SHARMA VS. ITO, WARD 3(1) VALUE/SEGMENT RATE OF THE PROPERTY UNDER CONSIDERAT ION COULD NOT BE ADOPTED FOR COMPUTING THE CAPITAL GAINS, THEREIN SUBMITTED THAT THE PROPERTY UNDER CONSIDERATION SUFFERED FROM LOCATION AL DISADVANTAGES AND ALSO DID NOT HAVE PROPER FRONTAGE. IT WAS THE C LAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE FRONT PORTION OF THE PROPERTY WAS BLOCKED BY TWO SHOPS WHICH COVERED 24 FEET (OUT OF THE TOTAL FRONT WIDTH OF 58 FEET). FURTHER, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE PROPERTY SOLD BY HIM WAS A BASEMENT PROPERTY WHICH HAD A MUCH LOWER VALUE AS C OMPARED TO THE GROUND FLOOR. APART THEREFROM, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY HIM THAT AS THE FRONT PORTION OF THE PROPERTY WAS BLOCKED, THEREFOR E, THE ENTIRE BUILDING WAS NOT VISIBLE FROM THE ROAD END. IN ORDER TO FORT IFY HIS AFORESAID CLAIM, THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO PLACED ON RECORD THE D RAWING OF THE PLOT AND THE PHOTOGRAPHS IN SUPPORT THEREOF. IN SUM AND SUBSTANCE, THE ASSESSEE TAKING SUPPORT OF THE LOCATIONAL AND OTHER DISADVANTAGES SUFFERED BY THE PROPERTY UNDER CONSIDERATION HAD OB JECTED TO THE ADOPTION OF THE CIRCLE VALUE/SEGMENT RATE FOR THE P URPOSE OF COMPUTING THE LTCG ON THE SALE OF THE SAME. HOWEVER, THE AO N OT FINDING FAVOUR WITH THE AFORESAID CONTENTIONS ADVANCED BY THE ASSE SSEE ADOPTED THE CIRCLE VALUE/SEGMENT RATE OF RS. 1 CRORE OF THE AFO REMENTIONED PROPERTY AS THE DEEMED SALE CONSIDERATION, AND REWORKED THE LTCG IN RESPECT OF THE SAME AT RS. 74,61,158/-. 5. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN AP PEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE CIT(A) AFTER DELIBERATING ON THE CONTEN TIONS ADVANCED BY THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FIND FAVOUR WITH THE SAME AND UPHELD THE ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O AND DISMISSED THE APPEAL. 6. THE ASSESSEE BEING AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER OF T HE CIT(A) HAS CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE US. THE LD. AUT HORIZED REPRESENTATIVE (FOR SHORT A.R) FOR THE ASSESSEE SUB MITTED, THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME RIGHTLY ADOP TED THE ACTUAL SALE P A G E | 4 ITA NO.493/ASR/2018 AY 2015-16 DEB BRAT SHARMA VS. ITO, WARD 3(1) CONSIDERATION OF RS. 28,00,000/- FOR WORKING OUT TH E LTCG ON THE SALE OF THE SAID PROPERTY. IN ORDER TO FORTIFY THE AFORE SAID CLAIM, THE LD. A.R DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE RETURN OF INCOME THAT WAS E-FILED BY THE ASSESSEE I.E PAGE NO. 34 OF THE ASSESSES PAPER BOOK (FOR SHORT APB). ON A PERUSAL OF THE AFORESAID EX TRACT, IT STANDS REVEALED THAT THE ASSESSEE AFTER DISCLOSING THAT TH E CIRCLE VALUE/SEGMENT RATE OF THE PROPERTY UNDER CONSIDERAT ION WAS RS. 1 CRORE, HAD HOWEVER ADOPTED THE ACTUAL SALE CONSIDER ATION OF RS. 28,00,000/- FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING THE LTCG O N THE SALE OF THE SAME. THE LD. A.R SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IN TH E COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, HAD ON THE BASIS OF SPECIFI C REASONS OBJECTED TO THE PROPOSED ADOPTION OF THE CIRCLE VALUE/SEGMEN T RATE BY THE A.O FOR COMPUTING THE LTCG ON THE SALE OF THE PROPERTY UNDER CONSIDERATION. IT WAS THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. A.R , THAT THE A.O WHO THOUGH IN THE BACKDROP OF THE REASONED OBJECTIONS R AISED BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE PROPOSED ADOPTION OF THE CIRCLE VAL UE/SEGMENT RATE REMAINED UNDER A STATUTORY OBLIGATION TO HAVE REFER RED THE VALUATION OF THE SAME TO THE VALUATION OFFICER UNDER SECTION 50C (2)(A), HOWEVER, HAD MOST ARBITRARILY BYPASSED THE SAID STATUTORY RE QUIREMENT AND HAD WORKED OUT THE LTCG BY ADOPTING THE CIRCLE VALUE/SE GMENT RATE AS THE FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION. THE LEARNED A.R IN ORD ER TO DRIVE HOME HIS CLAIM THAT IN THE BACKDROP OF THE AFORESAID FACTUAL MATRIX, IT WAS OBLIGATORY ON THE PART OF THE A.O TO HAVE REFERRED THE MATTER TO THE VALUATION CELL, THEREIN RELIED UPON AN ORDER OF A C OORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL VIZ., ITAT DELHI BENCH A, NEW DELHI IN THE CASE OF ITO, WARD2(1), MORADABAD VS. M/S ADITYA NARAYAN VERMA (H UF) [ITA N. 4166/DEL/2013; DATED 07.06.2017]. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED A.R THAT IN THE AFOREMENTIONED ORDER THE TRIBUNAL W HILE UPHOLDING THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) HAD OBSERVED THAT IF THE A.O DE SPITE SPECIFIC OBJECTION RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE VALUE ADO PTED OR ASSESSED BY P A G E | 5 ITA NO.493/ASR/2018 AY 2015-16 DEB BRAT SHARMA VS. ITO, WARD 3(1) THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) EXCEEDED THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AS ON THE DATE OF TRA NSFER, HOWEVER FAILS TO REFER THE MATTER FOR VALUATION TO THE VALUATION OFFICER, THEN THE ORDER OF THE A.O WOULD BE INVALID TO THE SAID EXTEN T. 7. PER CONTRA, THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTAT IVE (FOR SHORT D.R) RELIED ON THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LOWER AUTHOR ITIES. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED D.R THAT THE LOWER AUTHORI TIES HAD RIGHTLY ADOPTED THE CIRCLE VALUE/SEGMENT RATE OF THE AFOREM ENTIONED PROPERTY FOR COMPUTING THE CAPITAL GAIN UNDER SEC. 50C OF THE I.T ACT. IT WAS AVERRED BY THE LEARNED D.R THAT AS THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) DID NOT SUFFER FROM ANY INFIRMITY, THUS THE APPEAL OF T HE ASSESSEE BEING DEVOID OF ANY MERIT WAS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED. 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES FOR BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIE S AND THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD. ADMITTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE H AD SOLD THE PROPERTY UNDER CONSIDERATION FOR RS. 28 LAC. INSOFAR, THE CI RCLE VALUE/SEGMENT RATE OF THE PROPERTY UNDER CONSIDERATION IS CONCERN ED, THE SAME WAS RS. 1 CRORE AND STAMP DUTY WAS PAID ON THE SAID VAL UE. IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE AS SESSEE AFTER SPECIFICALLY REFERRING TO THE CIRCLE VALUE/SEGMENT RATE OF THE PROPERTY, HAD HOWEVER ADOPTED THE ACTUAL SALE CONSIDERATION O F RS. 28 LAC FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING THE LTCG ON THE SALE OF THE SA ME. APART THEREFROM, WE FIND FROM A PERUSAL OF THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES THAT THE ASSESSEE AFTER REFERRING TO THE LOCATIONAL DISADVANTAGES OF THE PROPERTY UNDER CONSIDERATION, HAD IN THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OBJECTED TO THE PROPOSED ADOPTION OF TH E CIRCLE VALUE/SEGMENT RATE BY THE A.O AS THE DEEMED SALE C ONSIDERATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING THE LTCG ON THE SALE OF TH E SAME. RATHER, AS A MATTER OF FACT, DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN THE SH APE OF DRAWINGS OF P A G E | 6 ITA NO.493/ASR/2018 AY 2015-16 DEB BRAT SHARMA VS. ITO, WARD 3(1) THE PLOT AND PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY WERE PLACE D ON THE RECORD BY THE ASSESSEE IN ORDER TO FORTIFY HIS CLAIM THAT THE PROPERTY UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS DISADVANTAGEOUSLY LOCATED. BE THA T AS IT MAY, IT REMAINS AS A MATTER OF FACT BORNE FROM THE RECORDS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED BEFORE THE A.O THAT THE VALUE ADOPTED B Y THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY EXCEEDED THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY UNDER CONSIDERATION. HOWEVER, WE FIND THAT THE OBJE CTION RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE PROPOSED ADOPTION OF THE CIRCLE VAL UE/SEGMENT RATE BY THE A.O FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING THE LTCG ON TH E SALE OF THE PROPERTY WAS HOWEVER BYPASSED BY THE A.O, WHO REWOR KED THE LTCG BY ADOPTING THE CIRCLE VALUE/SEGMENT RATE AS THE DE EMED SALE CONSIDERATION. 9. AS PER THE MANDATE OF CLAUSE (A) OF SUB-SECTION (2) TO SECTION 50C, IN CASE AN ASSESSEE CLAIMS BEFORE THE A.O. THA T THE VALUE ADOPTED BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY EXCEEDS THE FAIR M ARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY, THEN IT IS OBLIGATORY FOR THE A.O TO REFE R THE MATTER TO A VALUATION OFFICER FOR ASCERTAINING THE SAME. HOWEVE R, IN THE CASE BEFORE US, WE FIND THAT THE A.O DESPITE A SPECIFIC OBJECTI ON TO THE SAID EFFECT HAVING BEEN RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, HOWEVER DISPENSED WITH THE SAID STATUT ORY OBLIGATION AND FAILED TO REFER THE VALUATION OF THE PROPERTY UNDER CONSIDERATION TO THE VALUATION OFFICER. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THE AFOR ESAID METHODOLOGY ADOPTED BY THE A.O FOR REWORKING THE LTCG NOT BEING IN ACCORD WITH THE MANDATE OF LAW, THUS CANNOT BE SUBSCRIBED TO ON OUR PART. WE FIND THAT A SIMILAR ISSUE HAD CAME UP BEFORE A COORDINAT E BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL VIZ., ITAT A BENCH, DELHI IN THE CASE OF ITO, WARD2(1), MORADABAD VS. M/S ADITYA NARAYAN VERMA (HUF) [ITA N. 4166/DEL/2013; DATED 07.06.2017] . AS OBSERVED BY US HEREINABOVE, IN THE SAID CASE, THE TRIBUNAL HAD AFTER DELIBERATI NG AT LENGTH ON THE SCOPE AND GAMUT OF SECTION 50C(2) HAD UPHELD THE OR DER OF THE CIT(A) P A G E | 7 ITA NO.493/ASR/2018 AY 2015-16 DEB BRAT SHARMA VS. ITO, WARD 3(1) AND CONCLUDED THAT IF THE A.O DESPITE SPECIFIC OBJE CTION RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE VALUE ADOPTED OR ASSESSED BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) EXCEEDED THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AS ON THE DATE OF TRANSFER, HOWEVER FAILS TO REFER THE MATTER FOR VALUATION TO THE VALUATION OFFICER, THEN THE ORDER OF THE A.O WOULD BE INVALID TO THE SAID EXTENT. THE TRIBUNAL WHILE CONC LUDING AS HEREINABOVE HAD OBSERVED AS UNDER: 4.1 ON THE VERY PERUSAL OF THE PROVISIONS LAID DOW N UNDER SECTION 50C OF THE ACT REPRODUCED HEREINABOVE , WE FULLY CONCUR WITH THE FINDING OF THE ID. CIT (APPEA LS) THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE HAD CLAIMED B EFORE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE VALUE ADOPTED OR ASSESSE D BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY UNDER SUB SECTION (1) EXCEEDS THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AS ON THE DATE OF TRANSFER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD HAVE REFERRED THE VALUATION OF THE CAPITAL ASSET TO A VA LUATION OFFICER INSTEAD OF ADOPTING THE VALUE TAKEN BY THE STATE AUTHORITY FOR THE PURPOSE OF STAMP DUTY. THE VERY P URPOSE OF THE LEGISLATURE BEHIND THE PROVISIONS LAID DOWN UNDER SUB SECTION (2) TO SECTION 50C OF THE ACT IS THAT A VALUATION OFFICER IS AN EXPERT OF THE SUBJECT FOR SUCH VALUAT ION AND IS CERTAINLY IN A BETTER POSITION THAN THE ASSESSING O FFICER TO DETERMINE THE VALUATION. THUS, NON-COMPLIANCE OF TH E PROVISIONS LAID DOWN UNDER SUB SECTION (2) BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT BE HELD VALID AND JUSTIFIE D. THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD IN THE CASE OF SHASHI KANT GARG (SUPRA) HAS BEEN PLEASED TO HOL D THAT IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT IF UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AN AUTHORITY IS REQUIRED TO EXERCISE POWERS OR TO DO A N ACT IN A PARTICULAR MANNER, THEN THAT POWER HAS TO BE EXERCI SED AND THE ACT HAS TO BE PERFORMED IN THAT MANNER ALON E AND NOT IN ANY OTHER MANNER. SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN EXPR ESSED BY THE OTHER DECISIONS CITED BY THE LD. AR IN THIS REGARD HEREINABOVE. THE FIRST APPELLATE ORDER ON THE ISSU E IS THUS UPHELD. WE HAVE GIVEN A THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION AND CONCUR WITH THE AFORESAID VIEW SO TAKEN BY THE TRIBUNAL. IN OUR CON SIDERED VIEW, NOW P A G E | 8 ITA NO.493/ASR/2018 AY 2015-16 DEB BRAT SHARMA VS. ITO, WARD 3(1) WHEN THE A.O DESPITE SPECIFIC OBJECTION RAISED BY T HE ASSESSEE THAT THE VALUE ADOPTED BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY EXCE EDED THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY UNDER CONSIDERATION, H AD HOWEVER FAILED TO REFER THE MATTER TO THE VALUATION OFFICER FOR AS CERTAINING THE SAME, THEREFORE, THE REWORKING OF THE LTCG BY HIM NOT BEI NG IN CONFORMITY WITH THE MANDATE OF LAW CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. WE THUS ARE OF A STRONG CONVICTION THAT AS THE VERY MANDATE OF LAW PRESCRIB ED UNDER THE STATUTE HAD WHIMSICALLY BEEN BYPASSED BY THE A.O, T HEREFORE, THE CONSEQUENTIAL ADDITION OF RS. 72,00,000/- MADE BY H IM ON THE BASIS OF THE IMPUGNED REWORKING OF THE CAPITAL GAINS CANNOT BE SUSTAINED , AND DESERVES TO BE DELETED. 10. WE THUS IN TERMS OF THE AFORESAID OBSERVATIONS SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS. 72,00,000/- MADE BY THE A.O. 11. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 17/01/2019 SD/- SD/- ( N.K. SAINI) (RAVISH SOOD) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL ME MBER PLACE : JALANDHAR; DATED 17.01.2019 SH P A G E | 9 ITA NO.493/ASR/2018 AY 2015-16 DEB BRAT SHARMA VS. ITO, WARD 3(1) / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A)- 4. / CIT 5. DR, ITAT, JALANDHAR 6. / GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY// / BY ORDER, / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, JALANDHAR SR.NO. DETAILS DATE INITIALS DESIGNATION 1 DRAFT DICTATED ON 15.01.2019 SR.PS/PS 2 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 17.01.2019 SR.PS/PS 3 DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 4 DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 5 APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS SR.PS/PS 6 KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON SR.PS/PS 7 FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK SR.PS/PS 8 DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9 DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE AR 10 DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER